So, this poll on T-Central. In case you missed it, in the past week-and-change, T-Central has featured posts by:

  • a misogynist who has stated that he likes neither women nor transsexuals.  I suspect 95% of the people on T-Central fall into one or both of those groups.
  • a natal female radical feminist trans-hater who uses a sham "blog policy" to delete any and all comments that she doesn't agree with, and makes it clear that she doesn't respect those who disagree with her.
And now they're complaining about the level of animosity on the site?  And recommending a "penalty box" as their preferred option?  Geez, T-Central is going to end up like Pam's House Blend, with the "Left Sidebar of Shame."  I don't know if I want any part of a site that singles people out in such a manner, I suppose designed to shame those who "cause trouble" into changing their behavior.  If someone causes that much trouble, just remove them.  That's what I do over at PE.  We certainly don't have a "Wall of Shame."

I wouldn't have made a post out of this, but they turned off comments.  So my comment is here.

Not your finest hour, ladies.  Sorry.  I'm not with you on this one.  I am abstaining.


My apologies if our post upsets you.

I feel I should remind everyone that we have in the past featured posts from people who have gone all the way and have little time for those who have not taken their path, sometimes to a rather offensive level. A good post is a good post, whoever writes it.

When the disagreements within our community manifested themselves in a very unpleasant and personal hate campaign against one of our number we felt enough was enough. Our only choice was this: do we just kick people out or do we offer a second chance? I prefer the latter.

Some blogs have the routine warning re content for the general public.
Many women's blogs routinely give trigger warnings if discussing rape or domestic violence.
If someone routinely goes beyond normal borders of discourse to real offensiveness, and few could argue that those recently thrown off did exactly that in plenty,then an extra category of rating would seem to make sense, and personally I'd rather see it like that than a sin bin.
Frankly I'd go further and actually have TOS. Recently I had the experience of one t-central blogger commenting on another's blog with a fairly dumb personal attack on me. It also contained a rather unpleasant total lie. When I wrote simply, non-combatively pointing this out, the comment was taken out with a note to the effect that I and the other blogger could continue our discussion offline. Given that the lie had been up there for several hours I felt poorly done by in not being able to put an answer up. If there were TOS then at least I could complain about this state of affairs.
I'd add that in a year or so of blogosphere commenting this is the only time that I can think of that I'd do this.

Jenny, as I said when I was emailing with one of the T-Central admin people last night... at the end of the day, hate is hate, whether it's well written or not. This has *nothing* to do with people who have "gone all the way." There are CD men, TS women, and TG women on T-Central who have written hateful stuff. I mentioned the two I did only because they were recent.

Hateful <> good in my book. No matter how strong of a command of the English language the author possesses, or how eloquently he or she expresses that hate.

Typically a second chance involves something like an email warning to the perpetrator. Typically it does not involve public shaming. I feel that there must be some other motivation here besides a mere "second chance."

Sophie, if were me, I'd just boot people. On PE, there was a woman who liked to come into the chatroom and preach hate towards crossdressers. I warned her via email twice, but she continued, so I banned her. This was months ago. She came back all repentant, saying that she had grown as a person, so we gave her a second chance. Well, she was at it again a couple days ago, so now she's permanently banned. We gave her multiple second chances. But featuring her on the front page of the site?? It just doesn't make any sense.

It's very likely that if this ends up being T-Central's policy, that I will, without animosity, ask to have my blog removed. I disagree with it that strongly.

Then how would you feel if there was a separate section ? Something that said that views expressed on these blogs, and/or the manner of that expression, could be found offensive ?
That + simply throwing out for personal vendetta's or general hate speech would be my own preference.

Well, I've kind of already expressed how I feel about that. The sin bin concept *is* a separate section. It might be titled in a nicer way, but at the end of the day, it's still the same thing, no? Lipstick on a pig, so to speak.

I just loathe the term "sin-bin," since it denotes that one is posting something not only what is perceived as unethical, but also immoral. Most of the ugly, hateful posts by trans women (of all types) might be distasteful and smell of vomit, but I wouldn't call them immoral.

Whatever happens, I support those who are trying their best to make T-Central a safe-haven for the many who just long for those blogs that are affirming, understanding, and supportive of what they're going through.


"Sin bin" is a nickname used for the penalty box in ice hockey. So in that sense, it implies only rule transgression, not moral failing.

Post a Comment


My photo

When I transitioned, there just weren't too many blogs out there written by straight, transitioned women. Well, here's one.

I can be reached via email at this address.

Here is my comment policy.



counter customizable